Jump to content

DTroppens

Moderators
  • Posts

    34,671
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DTroppens

  1. Mark Fidrych's 1976 season may be the single most replayed pitcher season replay among the baseball board gamers. In most he does really well. But a game like APBA almost makes it impossible for you to have the Bird struggle.
  2. I find the players only broadcasts entertaining occasionally. They are hit and miss.
  3. I'm really tired of his "thank you" comments to Kelser. He started that about three or four years ago and now it seems he does it 50 times again. He does it before Kelser even finishes the comment frequently.
  4. Me neither. I couldn't even remember his last name when I made the post. I don't like Blaha either, but what can you do? I like Kelser.
  5. Like Lee said, I'm a cards and dice guy. I primarily play the original version of Replay Baseball, but the 1976 replay is the newer 6x6 version. I am trying to get the 1901 to about 1991 Tiger seasons covered so now I'm trying other games as well to do that. I have a couple Statis-Pro set from childhood, own a 1911 Strat set (want to do the 1911 Tigers pretty bad), some APBA sets (have a 1901 Tigers season started), some Hardball Wars sets and even a couple Payoff Pitch sets. Now I'm trying to cover the years I don't have with some super quality free games. For example, I'm going to play some 1907 AL games tonight with the National Pastime Next Generation cards I printed (a lot like APBA but I like it better) and now I'm looking at Ballhalla which also looks like a high quality free game (printing 1902 cards). Anyone who wants to give a game a whirl for free should do a search for Ballhalla or national pastime (NPNG+) and give those games a shot. One of the reasons I don't go on this site and on the computer as much as I did four or five years ago is just getting tired at looking at computer screens/phones all the time, so for leisure stuff I've completely done the 180 opposite with my personal life. I can't stand being on computers all the time and then doing it at home, so I dropped a lot of those activities. I had NOTHING against the board and other places I frequented, I just stopped using the Internet for a lot of my personal fun time. I flat out dropped the Internet at home and am super happy with that decision. Now I'm just adding some of that stuff back, and I did miss this place a lot. But that's why I play cards and dice. I don't want to be on a monitor or a phone. It's what I grew up doing as a kid, so it's super enjoyable. I also sell my own soccer game called Nets Results Soccer. Actually, I need to start working on my MLS set soon. Maybe I'll start posting some stuff here. The 1976 Tigers are amazingly flirting with .500 despite the fact Fidrych hasn't had a season close to the one he actually had. The dice have been pretty evil to him most of the season.
  6. Well, how fortunate is this? We are in a motel in Florence, KY and I turn on the TV. Guess what is on - the Pistons replay via the Cavs' broadcast. I'm going to finish watching this game. Weird hearing Fred doing a game again.
  7. Wow, they won? I saw about five minutes of the replay and then died for the night. I wish I didn't now.
  8. Thanks. I probably concentrate on my Tiger replays (did 1951 during the summer and am now doing 1976 and Fidrych isn't doing well) more than I do the Tigers these days. I'm also messing around with a 1901, 1936 and a 1937 Tiger replay as well. I have a 1907 AL and a 1966 AL full season replay going on, not to mention my own soccer game I'm selling. Gosh, now I see why I haven't been on the boards the last three or four years (whatever it was).
  9. You asked what the party did to Bernie, and I actually thought you didn't know and were looking for answers. I gave you some legitimate reasons what the DNC and some other organizations (like corporate news) did and why, in part, he was unable to make up the large lead Clinton had. Some stuff we really do agree upon: I actually think I mentioned some of it was Bernie's fault, so I listed them. I don't question your view on why Bernie's name wasn't a household name at the start of the election. You are right, Clinton earned that household name. I think what I was presenting was how when he became a potential force in the race, instead of the media doing their job and presenting him as a potential candidate, they gave him very little coverage. And what little coverage they gave him was usually reasonably misleading. Second, it's obvious you know the background of some of what the DNC did, but would rather pick and choose the most obscure comment made in a post to attack it to prove your point. If you sincerely don't know what the DNC did, read up on it. It's out there. If a party allows you to run in their primary, shouldn't their primary objective be to be as objective as possible to all the candidates possible? Third, I never denied Clinton getting the 3 million votes and I don't think I said Sanders would've beat Clinton without the corruption. I do think if he won the primary, he would've probably beat Trump and it's obvious we agree on that point. I think my final post was actually critical of Sanders on why he didn't win. I don't think he entered the race thinking he can win. ========== About his age, people routinely bring up Sanders' age but we don't hear it about the other candidates close to his age. People seeking his populist message really don't have a true "other" candidate right now, and that's why he's still the voice of that message. Like I think I mentioned, it would be great to have someone younger to carry the torch for Bernie's message, but right now anyone I could name that I know about (not saying I am the encyclopedia of every progressive not taking money from corporation or the 1%s interest but I'm reasonably knowledgeable on the subject) isn't ready - at least in my opinion. And apparently in their opinion as well as none of them (except maybe Warren who isn't a spring chicken herself) are looking to see the presidential office that I know about. I'm not claiming to be a political expert, but I think most people who follow Bernie follow him for his policies, not his age.
  10. You asked what the party did to Bernie, and I actually thought you didn't know and were looking for answers. I gave you some legitimate reasons what the DNC and some other organizations (like corporate news) did and why, in part, he was unable to make up the large lead Clinton had. Some stuff we really do agree upon: I actually think I mentioned some of it was Bernie's fault, so I listed them. I don't question your view on why Bernie's name wasn't a household name at the start of the election. You are right, Clinton earned that household name. I think what I was presenting was how when he became a potential force in the race, instead of the media doing their job and presenting him as a potential candidate, they gave him very little coverage. And what little coverage they gave him was usually reasonably misleading. Second, it's obvious you know the background of some of what the DNC did, but would rather pick and choose the most obscure comment made in a post to attack it to prove your point. If you sincerely don't know what the DNC did, read up on it. It's out there. If a party allows you to run in their primary, shouldn't their primary objective be to be as objective as possible to all the candidates possible? Third, I never denied Clinton getting the 3 million votes and I don't think I said Sanders would've beat Clinton without the corruption. I do think if he won the primary, he would've probably beat Trump and it's obvious we agree on that point. I think my final post was actually critical of Sanders on why he didn't win. I don't think he entered the race thinking he can win. ========== About his age, people routinely bring up Sanders' age but we don't hear it about the other candidates close to his age. People seeking his populist message really don't have a true "other" candidate right now, and that's why he's still the voice of that message. Like I think I mentioned, it would be great to have someone younger to carry the torch for Bernie's message, but right now anyone I could name that I know about (not saying I am the encyclopedia of every progressive not taking money from corporation or the 1%s interest but I'm reasonably knowledgeable on the subject) isn't ready - at least in my opinion. And apparently in their opinion as well as none of them (except maybe Warren who isn't a spring chicken herself) are looking to see the presidential office that I know about. I'm not claiming to be a political expert, but I think most people who follow Bernie follow him for his policies, not his age.
  11. Really, it would take about a night's worth of reading to find the answer. Clinton's emails presented some answers. Tulsi Gabbard left the DNC because of the corruption and actually started stumping for Bernie because of it. Debbie Wasserman Schulz was tied with the Clinton campaign from the start and eventually resigned her position due to the emails and then even her predecessor Donna Brazille (who gave Clinton questions prior to a debate with Bernie) admitted in her book the primary was rigged. Someone younger - Young people actually support Bernie. Why? Because of his policies. It would be great to have someone younger, but those who are in the wings are not household names just yet, were just elected or aren't even serving in office right now.
  12. I haven't followed this forum for years, so I don't know your background, but I'll give this a shot. 1) Remember Clinton had huge name recognition against Bernie four years ago. When the election started huge portions of the population had no clue who he was. And even if some of us political wackos knew who he was, in most cases still didn't really know much about him until maybe a week prior to their primary. So early on, Clinton had a huge advantage due to her name. 2) Media coverage didn't help Bernie. The last thing the corporate world wanted was Bernie winning, so he received very little media, pretty much keeping him from being a household name in the primary for even longer than possible. And when he was pressed, it was usually to smear him instead of providing actual coverage of his proposals. A perfect example of this was the Washington Posts "16 negative stories on Bernie in 16 hours" episode. 3) The Dem Party fought against him every step of the way, corrupting their own primary. 4) And some of this was Bernie's fault. When he first entered the race, he didn't think he was going to win. He probably just hoped to push Clinton to the left a little bit more. And when the Bernie wave started, he probably didn't attack her policies enough. He did a bit, but he could've attacked much harder if he wanted to. -------- Now here's the difference this cycle vs. last one. Four years ago, no one knew who the heck Bernie Sanders was. But now, he's the most popular politician in the United States. Even most Republicans don't hate Bernie. Bernie would enter this cycle with a huge advantage he just didn't have four years ago. And people pretty much know what he stands for regardless what the media may say today. The question I think that may surround Bernie is maybe he shouldn't have supported Clinton and maybe that will hurt his chances of creating that great wave of young support he had four years ago. And, of course, his age. But, what he stands for today you can find videos of him talking about 20 years ago as well, so my guess that resonates and it certainly resonates with younger voters. If the party allows him to win the primary, I think he'd do very well against Trump.
  13. I think Dems need to do two things to win. 1) Run on policy and not just "We're not Trump." You can't say you are resisting Trump (when for the most part you're not), a bunch of platitudes and then not include any policies that will help the majority of Americans. If the Dems don't create legitimate policies, the base won't be energized. And one thing you can bet is Trump's base will always be energized. Create an actual jobs program. End the wars. End student debt. Say you are going to push for a drive to get money out of politics. Threaten some of these monopolies. Actually tell us what you stand for. Maybe some of these things are the right policies or maybe not - BUT YOU HAVE TO STAND FOR SOMETHING. 2) They need to run a populist candidate that isn't so easily tied to his/her big donors and has a track record that suggests they won't. Let's go to point No. 2 - It leaves a very small number of candidates that I think can generate an independent base to vote Democrat. Dems only win when they fight for the people or have the perception (Obama) they are fighting for the people. People like Cuomo, Bloomberg, Gillibrand, Booker, Harris and even Biden are all vulnerable. People aren't stupid. They know they aren't going to fight for their interests over their donor interests. But let's face facts, that's the direction the party will push its primary, probably to the point of corruption again to make sure it comes out with a candidate beholden to the interests of the party's donors. Those candidates aren't going to do the No. 1 thing on my list. So who's left if we go based on candidates that won't be controlled by their donors, or won't take that money? Bernie and Elizabeth Warren. We saw what happened last cycle with the Dem Party. They'll corrupt that primary however they can to make sure he can't win. But, yes, Bernie would easily beat Trump. He has the policies, along with the historical perspective to prove he's genuine. Bernie would excited a huge portion of that independent base. How about Warren? She may be able to do some of that as well, but probably not to the level of Bernie. I think Bernie easily beats Trump. I think Warren has a very good shot. Anyone else - I think Trump wins, including Biden.
  14. I'd probably vote for Liz as well, but it does bother me a lot how she is catering to the party. Would she be enough in line with my values to vote for her over a third-party candidate? Probably. However, my conviction behind her isn't as strong now as it was four years ago.
  15. Realistically I'll end up voting third party again next cycle as I have for decades now unless one of these things happen (and most of these things won't happen because the Dem Party will make sure these people don't win the primary): 1) Bernie Sanders gets the nod - most popular politician in the nation. He'd win, but probably won't get the chance. He's the most obvious pick if Dems want to win, but they'd rather lose than have Bernie win. 2) Elizabeth Warren - still super populist, so would they let her win? Yeah, probably, but I think that just shows how she's starting to realize to win, she has to play ball in the party, which means is she really the candidate I want? 3) By some small miracle people like Nina Turner and Tulsi Gabbard decide to run and get enough name recognition to win. Of course there's no way the Dem Party will allow them to win it even if they had a shot. Maybe Gabbard in six to 10 years. Turner doesn't even hold an office right now, so that's a complete pipe dream.
  16. It was fun thinking, "Dang, they may score 40 in the first quarter" and seeing it happen. Then it was fun thinking "They might have 70 by halftime" and seeing that happen.
  17. The ejection was the right call. But that said, I can understand to a certain point why Blake Griffin was frustrated. He probably should've gone to the line a few more times than he did. But, eh, the game was pretty much over by then anyway. Like I kind of said in the other post already, one team made offense hard for the other squad. One team didn't. The right team won the game based on that comment. While the Pistons and Lions lost, on the bright side, my Sunday curling team is 2-0, and I've yet to lose a match on Sundays even prior to league play.
  18. I didn't think Charlotte looked that much different from the Pistons in a lot of ways. The biggest difference, however, was it seemed they were inspired to play defense for much longer spurts than the Pistons. This isn't a talented offensive team. That's pretty apparent. But the NBA is a league where if you can get just about any team to give a damn about their defensive effort, you are going to be okay - at least in the regular season. At least for this one game Charlotte gave me an impression of a team that gave a damn on defense. Minus not getting defensive boards (okay that is a glaring issue) they did put a lot of hard work on the defensive side of the floor and they won this game, much easier than the final score would indicate. Of course, you can say this about almost every mediocre Pistons' team of my lifetime, but I can handle hacky offense that lacks discipline if teams just care about their defense and it's apparent that's not going to happen this season. Take all the quick three-pointers you want. Do all that crap and miss them or maybe occasionally get hot and make 5 of 8 shots. I can live with that if the defense is there. And, it's obvious that the defense isn't going to be there this season just as it hasn't been for a long time. I'm not remaking the wheel or anything here. I know that. I know I'm not saying anyting that isn't super obvious. But, hey, I figured I'd say it.
  19. I have an old computer tower that I use for a step for our upstairs toilet. It works like a charm.
  20. I never had high hopes for this team. Even when they were 4-0, I didn't start jamming and think this team was suddenly going to win 45 games. But to see them 4-5 already is semi-depressing. They could've at least won one or two of those games and kept the spirit of staying above .500 alive at least until mid-November.
  21. I not only agree, I thought this was pretty much "common knowledge" at the time.
  22. It's over. Time to go for a little walk in the woods. Hard to win games when you are down 20-something on the road.
  23. That spurt probably ended it. ebiid bucket johnson misses trey and Philly goes down and hits a trey. down 10
  24. Smith pushes, layup, down by five and time out.
×
×
  • Create New...